Administrative Assistant Gets $1 Monthly Spousal Support After High Court Dismisses $2,500 Appeal

A High Court judge dismissed a woman’s appeal for spousal maintenance of $2,500 a month on 7 May 2025.

Justice Choo Han Teck also reduced her former husband’s share of marital assets by 10 per cent due to his multiple attempts to undermine the marriage and the woman’s welfare.

The 39-year-old administrative assistant, who earns $2,340 a month, will continue receiving a nominal maintenance of $1 a month, which was earlier awarded by a district judge.

Monetary Support

The $1 is a symbolic sum. It preserves her right to apply for monetary support from her former husband in the future.

The woman filed for divorce in 2023. She was married to a 46-year-old regular serviceman in the Singapore Armed Forces whose net salary is $5,212 a month.

The couple has joint custody of their 12-year-old daughter, but the girl lives with her father.

Justice Choo awarded the woman 25 per cent of the matrimonial flat, up from 20 per cent the district judge gave her earlier.

She also gets over $52,000 as her share of the other assets.

The man received 75 per cent of the flat and 59 per cent of the other assets, with the rest going to the woman.

Court Maintains Nominal Maintenance Despite Housing Challenges

The district judge had said the woman is working and can support herself. She received a fair share of the marital assets. The amount she has to contribute to their child’s maintenance – $327 a month – is not high.

The district judge noted that the woman is a foreigner who moved to Singapore for marriage and lacked family support here.

The judge chose to preserve her right to nominal maintenance of $1 a month for a transitional period of four years.

The woman’s lawyer, Mr Russell Thio of Emerald Law, argued that the district judge did not adequately consider her need for accommodation in awarding her just $1 in maintenance a month.

The woman is a former Indian national and Singapore permanent resident. She cannot buy an HDB flat on her own, among other factors.

Justice Choo said the wife had not shown that her pay was insufficient to meet her monthly expenses, including housing. She had not shown that she has exhausted all means to find accommodation.

The man was represented by Mr Sarbrinder Singh Naranjan Singh and Mr Nicholas Say of Sanders Law.

Justice Choo said he saw no “practical distinction” between an order for no maintenance and an order for nominal maintenance of $1.

He said: “However, as the Court of Appeal has held otherwise, I will leave the $1 order intact. It is a sum as inconsequential in substance as it is in appearance.”

He was referring to another case where the Court of Appeal ruled that unless there is a maintenance order made during the divorce – such as a nominal $1 order – the spouse cannot seek maintenance in the future.

Ms Angelina Hing, managing director of Integro Law Chambers, said the $1 nominal maintenance preserves the former spouse’s right to apply for a more significant sum of maintenance if there are material changes in her financial situation or needs.

Justice Choo was of the view that an order for no maintenance is still a “subsisting order for maintenance” under Section 118 of the Women’s Charter. This means the order is currently in effect. This should not prevent a former spouse from applying for maintenance in the future.

He also said that under Section 113 of the Women’s Charter, the court can order a man to pay maintenance to his former wife even after the divorce judgment has been granted.

Ms June Lim, managing director of Eden Law Corporation, said: “His judgment signals that this area of law might benefit from further consideration, clarification from the higher courts or through legislative reform, but until that happens, the precedent remains binding.”

Former Husband’s Conduct Leads to Reduced Asset Share

Justice Choo reduced the man’s share of the marital assets by 10 per cent to signal the court’s disapproval of his conduct.

The man repeatedly denied the wife access to their daughter. He was penalised for contempt of court for having breached court orders. Such penalties involve a fine or a jail term, or both, though his penalty was not stated in the judgment.

He also petitioned the HDB to acquire the flat because of his financial difficulties. He tried to send the woman back to India.

He refused to let the woman add her name to the title deed of their matrimonial flat. He refused to let her repay the housing loan, which led to the forfeiture of the flat due to substantial arrears.

At one point, she settled the outstanding arrears and maintained subsequent payments.

Justice Choo said the HDB refunded all her payments, as she was not entitled to make such payments without her former husband’s consent as the flat’s sole owner.

The woman was eventually evicted from the flat by the HDB and police officers.

The man’s actions deprived the woman of a larger sum that an open market sale of the flat would have yielded, Justice Choo said.

Ms Edith Chen, a lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences and a consultant with Tan Rajah and Cheah, said marriage should be an equal cooperative partnership of efforts for the mutual benefit of both spouses.

She added: “If one spouse’s conduct does not contribute to the partnership, but instead has a negative impact on the partnership, the court may take such negative impact into consideration and may reduce that spouse’s share of the assets.”

Ms Chen said that if a flat is considered a matrimonial asset under the Women’s Charter, it is liable to be divided between the couple. This is even if one spouse fully financed the property, or the flat is under one spouse’s name only.